I don't see it that way. Why do we, as societies, desire normativity? I'd say it is because we care about social harmony. We don't need to establish normativity when it comes to bare perception; the commonality is there for us, it is not something engineered by us. Psychological normativity and moral normativity are pragmatic concerns; a society functions better and people are happier if there is harmony.

So let's apply this to a practical example:

When the critics of Trump and his followers make claims about them, they (ie. the critics) believe that they are making claims about how things really are.


How do you comment? — baker

I've been talking about perception not politics.

I've been talking about perception not politics. — Janus

So when people talk about politics, they don't have perception?

What kind of question is that?

Why do we, as societies, desire normativity? I'd say it is because we care about social harmony. We don't need to establish normativity when it comes to bare perception; the commonality is there for us, it is not something engineered by us. Psychological normativity and moral normativity are pragmatic concerns; a society functions better and people are happier if there is harmony. — Janus

But the results of perception are normativized. There is a clear pressure in society to see things in a particular way and to believe that this is "how they really are", and to further believe that when one sees things that way, one "sees them as they really are".

What I’m calling attention to is the tendency to take for granted the reality of the world as it appears to us, without taking into account the role the mind plays in its constitution....
— Wayfarer

I think this is so by design, because otherwise, any kind of normativity is impossible. — baker

Not so. It is specific feature of modern and post-industrial culture with its emphasis on scientific instrumentalism. In earlier cultures, the 'is/ought' gap had not yet appeared, because it was presumed that what one ought to do, and what is the case, are connected: 'In the Indian context it would have been axiomatic that liberation comes from discerning how things actually are, the true nature of things. That seeing things how they are has soteriological benefits would have been expected, and is just another way of articulating the ‘is’ and ‘ought’ dimension of Indian Dharma. The ‘ought’ (pragmatic benefit) is never cut adrift from the ‘is’ (cognitive factual truth).'

but that, absent an observer, whatever exists is unintelligible and meaningless as a matter of fact and principle.
— Wayfarer
How do you propose to build a system of morality based on the above idea? — baker

Many pre-modern moral systems never doubted it - the idea that the universe comprises dumb stuff directed solely by physical forces is a very recent one. (It has always been around, but had never before become dominant.)

If we all saw different things; if I saw a bus where you saw a tree, then no normativity would be possible. The fact that at the basic level of bare perception we see the same things is not a fact engineered by us. My dog sees the same things I do, judging from his behavior.

'No features', is the expression Charles Pinter uses - shape being one. Features correspond to functions of the animal sensorium, but this thesis is developed over several chapters, and not one I can summarise in a few words. — Wayfarer

Oh, I assumed he would do something like that - define 'shape' as a sensory phenomenon. I think it only sidesteps the issue, begging the pertinent question and discarding the colloquial meaning of the word 'shape'. So of course if we define 'shape' to be a sensory phenomenon, then the boulder cannot have shape by definition. But I think we want to move beyond this sort of tautological approach.

Note that my point about the boulder cuts through this redefinition. The boulder must have shape in the colloquial sense, and therefore we have knowledge of the boulder as it is in itself.

I acknowledge at the outset that the universe pre-exists us: 'though we know that prior to the evolution of life there must have been a Universe with no intelligent beings in it, or that there are empty rooms with no inhabitants, or objects unseen by any eye — the existence of all such supposedly unseen realities still relies on an implicit perspective.'

It's the idea of 'an implicit perspective' that you're calling into question. — Wayfarer

The point that I have been trying to stress is that it is not a difference of whether there is an implicit perspective, or propositions, or "glass", but rather what the nature of those rational entities is. I think all parties agree that there are such things. The disagreement is always over their precise nature. One groups says that the rational entity prevents us from knowing reality as it is in itself; the other group says that it does not. For the classical realist the extramental world can be known in itself precisely through the rational, perspective-grounded mind.

But I'm thinking this might be a good stopping point, especially because @plaque flag can carry it forward.

What kind of question is that? — Janus

An inquisitive one.

It's a blind spot frequently encountered in philosophical discussions. In philosophy, there's a taboo against using a philosopher's philosophy against him, and a taboo against using some philosophical claim on the spot, testing it in vivo, as it were.

It's rather ironic. For example, some philosopher complains about how some people are treating other people (and other beings as objects), yet this same philosopher is treating them the same way, as an object.

The disagreement is always over their precise nature. One groups says that the rational entity prevents us from knowing reality as it is in itself; the other group says that it does not. — Leontiskos

The problem there is that you're trying to assume a perspective outside both, in order to arrive at which one of the two is correct. And I don't think that can be done, in this case. (Oh, and Plaque Flag and I go back at least 10 years now. He's a very interesting contributor, although somewhat prone to digression ;-) )

So when people talk about politics, they don't have perception? — baker

You're muddying the waters :rage:

If we all saw different things; if I saw a bus where you saw a tree, then no normativity would be possible. The fact that at the basic level of bare perception we see the same things is not a fact engineered by us. My dog sees the same things I do, judging from his behavior. — Janus

How do you know we in fact see the same things?

What if we are merely conforming, to the point of sometimes even pretending that we see the same thing? As in, "Do you see this black snow?" -- "Yes, I see this black snow."

The normativity I'm talking about is about what we *say* that we think is real. (And of course, if one says something often enough, one is bound to believe it, even if one originally didn't believe it.)


As for the conceptual image that your dog has of what you call a tree: it possibly isn't the same as yours.

↪Banno
I think your objections are naive*1 and that idealism as I construe it is not necessarily saying what you think it is saying. I note that you think that it’s saying that the world is all and only in the mind - the first objection I note. I’m not arguing that. So your objections are basically straw man versions of the argument. And I’ll also add that you’re not even really making a serious effort. I think it’s all variations of ‘argument from the stone’. — Wayfarer

↪Wayfarer
I think you are claiming idealism but advocating antirealism*2. — Banno

*1. Naive Realism :
In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology)
Note --- Is it possible that both "naive realists" and "philosophical idealists" are biased (by faith) toward a hypothetical "true" view, that neither can directly access? The key to the Truth door here is that Wayfarer's more sophisticated Idealism openly admits that its perfect Ideal World*3 is an unattainable goal that we can strive toward but never reach. Even the "extinguishment" of the grasping mind (as in Nirvana) would leave us without the means for knowing what lies on the other side of the closed door.

*2. Anti-realism :
In anti-realism, the truth of a statement rests on its demonstrability through internal logic mechanisms, such as the context principle or intuitionistic logic, in direct opposition to the realist notion that the truth of a statement rests on its correspondence to an external, independent reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism
Note --- As Kant and other philosophers have noted, humans know only their own subjective model of reality, that they have created from sense impressions derived from a local & personal perspective, not from a god-like view of "an external independent reality". Consequently, naive realism is based on faith in a non-human objective model of the totality of reality.

*3. Nirvana fallacy
The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Nirvana_fallacy
Note --- I'm not accusing Wayfarer of this fallacy. Just noting that perfect Truth/Wisdom/Reality is unrealistic & idealistic. But that does not stop philosophers from seeking the unreachable Ideal. Wisdom lies in realizing your own limits --- what's impossible. :smile:

The Impossible Dream (The Quest)
Song by Mitch Leigh
To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
To run where the brave dare not go…

You're muddying the waters — Wayfarer

Talk about upholding taboos!

"Philosophical insights can and should be applied to mountain meadows, butterflies, dogs, teapots, but not to hot topics like the criticism of Trumpistas."

It's not clear to me what you are trying to get at, Baker.

Talk about upholding taboos! — baker

I think you're capable of highly insightful and incisive contributions but right now you're just firing off random questions, dragging Trump in for mention, for instance.

That makes two of us :brow:

Even the "extinguishment" of the grasping mind (as in Nirvana) would leave us without the means for knowing what lies on the other side of the closed door. — Gnomon

Steady on, old chap. 'Buddha' means 'one who knows'.

My edit: "For the classical realist the extramental world can be known in itself precisely through the rational, perspective-grounded mind."

• S(b): The boulder has shape in itself

S(b) can be known. It is known via a contingent and finite perspective. Therefore contingent and finite perspectives do not prevent us from knowing reality in itself.

...So I don't want to reject the idea of a perspective, I just don't think it entails what you think it entails.

The problem there is that you're trying to assume a perspective outside both, in order to arrive at which one of the two is correct. And I don't think that can be done, in this case. — Wayfarer

But does not any decision in favor of one or the other imply an ability to adjudicate, and therefore imply access to an "outside perspective"? I don't think there is any difference between my position and yours, on this score.

(Oh, and Plaque Flag and I go back at least 10 years now. He's a very interesting contributor, although somewhat prone to digression ;-) ) — Wayfarer

Ah, okay. I often tend to the opposite problem: saying too little. :smile:

How do you know we in fact see the same things? — baker

It seems obvious. When I'm working with another carpenter and I ask her to pass me the saw, she does not pass me the router. When I throw the ball for my dog he sees it as a ball to be chased, not a food bowl to be eaten from. No social coordination at all would be possible if humans and animals did not see the same things in their environments.

I think you're capable of highly insightful and incisive contributions but right now you're just firing off random questions, dragging Trump in for mention, for instance. — Wayfarer

*sigh*

Philosopher, know thyself!

I brought up Trump precisely because he's such a hot topic, to see if you can apply your insights from this thread when it comes to talking about something other than meadows and butterflies.

And there you go, patronizing me again.

When I'm working with another carpenter and I ask her to pass me the saw, she does not pass me the router. When I throw the ball for my dog he sees it as a ball to be chased, not a food bowl to be eaten from. No social coordination at all would be possible if humans and animals did not see the same things in their environments. — Janus

Sure, there are some obvious instances of people "seeing the same things".

Is Pluto a planet or not? When you look at Pluto, you might see a planet, but someone else doesn't. How so?

- Make it three. :monkey:

If we want to discuss Trump, then we must all see him as Trump, not as Hillary Clinton or Shirley Temple, no? We must all first agree about what he has been recorded as saying and doing, before we can disagree about our interpretations of his acts, no?

Sure, there are some obvious instances of people "seeing the same things".

Is Pluto a planet or not? When you look at Pluto, you might see a planet, but someone else doesn't. How so? — baker

When you and I see Pluto, whether through a telescope (that we also both see) or on a TV ( a TV that we both see) or a photo in a magazine (a magazine that we both see) we presumably see the same image or object, but we might disagree about what category to assign it to.

S(b): The boulder has shape in itself

S(b) can be known. It is known via a contingent and finite perspective. Therefore contingent and finite perspectives do not prevent us from knowing reality in itself. — Leontiskos

But you're simply appealing to some fact or other. That a particular thing has a particular shape. But as already stated, 'In a universe without an observer having a purpose, you cannot have facts. ...a fact is something far more complex than it appears to be at first sight. In order for a fact to exist, it must be preceded by a segmentation of the world into separate things, and requires a brain that is able to extract it from the background in which it is immersed. Moreover, this brain must have the power to conceive in Gestalts, because in order to perceive its outlines and extract it, a fact must be seen whole, together with some of its context.' You can't argue from outside that framework, as you're trying to do. As I said before, we need to take off our spectacles and look at them, and it's a difficult thing to do.

And there you go, patronizing me again. — baker

I'm attempting to moderate a thread by keeping it on track. There's a very long multi-year thread about DJT, let's keep comments about him in that thread.

When I'm working with another carpenter and I ask her to pass me the saw, she does not pass me the router. When I throw the ball for my dog he sees it as a ball to be chased, not a food bowl to be eaten from. No social coordination at all would be possible if humans and animals did not see the same things in their environments. — Janus

:up:

Not so. It is specific feature of modern and post-industrial culture with its emphasis on scientific instrumentalism. — Wayfarer

And in previous systems, the equivalent was the tyrannical socio-economic system in which most people were considered expendable and often treated accordingly.

In earlier cultures, the 'is/ought' gap had not yet appeared, because it was presumed that what one ought to do, and what is the case, are connected: 'In the Indian context it would have been axiomatic that liberation comes from discerning how things actually are, the true nature of things. That seeing things how they are has soteriological benefits would have been expected, and is just another way of articulating the ‘is’ and ‘ought’ dimension of Indian Dharma. The ‘ought’ (pragmatic benefit) is never cut adrift from the ‘is’ (cognitive factual truth).'

Take away the robes and other thaumaturgical veneer and you get the same discourse that we have today, that has always existed.

In the old days, people were considered subjects of a deity and of monarchs and landlords. Nowadays, we are considered subjects of well, whoever happens to be in the position of power. But we never cease to be subjects to someone or something.

The nature of the discourse has not changed: there is a hierarchy between people, there is a power differential between people, and resources are scarce, and we shape our input in accordance with this knowledge It's only the externals that change (and those are the ones you're focusing on).

A religious/spiritual person will tell you that you "need to see things as they really are".
A psychologist will tell you that you "need to see things as they really are".
A politician will tell you that you "need to see things as they really are".
And somehow, "things as they really are" is always what those in position with more power than yourself say that they are.

Many pre-modern moral systems never doubted it - the idea that the universe comprises dumb stuff directed solely by physical forces is a very recent one. (It has always been around, but had never before become dominant.)

But to the man in robes, *you* are the dumb stuff!!

I'm attempting to moderate a thread by keeping it on track. — Wayfarer

It is on track. I'm not discussing Trump. I'm discussing how philosophers, too, have taboos, which is ironically relevant, given the topic.

But you're simply appealing to some fact or other. That a particular thing has a particular shape. But as already stated, 'In a universe without an observer having a purpose, you cannot have facts. ...a fact is something far more complex than it appears to be at first sight. In order for a fact to exist, it must be preceded by a segmentation of the world into separate things, and requires a brain that is able to extract it from the background in which it is immersed. Moreover, this brain must have the power to conceive in Gestalts, because in order to perceive its outlines and extract it, a fact must be seen whole, together with some of its context.' You can't argue from outside that framework, as you're trying to do. — Wayfarer

This is how I view it: Philosophers like Pinter or Hume come up with theories, often abstruse, and then they interpret reality based on their theory instead of allowing reality to correct or even disprove their theory. (It's quite common for philosophers to fall in love with their own theories.) Thus Pinter's argument:

• If [abstruse theory], then [boulders cannot have shape]
• [Abstruse theory]
• Therefore, [Boulders cannot have shape]

The answer and reversal is always as follows:

1. If [abstruse theory], then [boulders cannot have shape]
2. [Boulders do have shape]
3. Therefore, [Abstruse theory is false]

I think we actually agree on (2), and if (2) holds then facts exist, (3) holds, etc.

Whether the modus ponens or the modus tollens holds depends on whether [abstruse theory] or [boulders do have shape] is better-known, and it seems obvious to me that the latter is better-known, and that the former must therefore be discarded or revised. While this is a simplification, it at the same time represents a standard pattern for anti-realist systems. (This is another topic I have an unpublished thread-draft for.)

Now often philosophers will just disagree for all eternity on such issues, but the curious thing in our case is that we actually agree with respect to (2), and this signals a tension in your own thinking.

If we want to discuss Trump, then we must all see him as Trump, not as Hillary Clinton or Shirley Temple, no? We must all first agree about what he has been recorded as saying and doing, before can disagree about our interpretations of his acts, no? — Janus

Sure.

But saying, for example, that someone "inoculated people against reality" is already an interpretation of his act, not the act itself. Of course, then there are those who will say it's not so, that it's not merely an interpretation.

Somehow, "self-knowledge" tends to be about thinking of yourself the way someone else wants you to think of yourself. — baker

Yeah…hence the closing comment I made to Wayfarer, re: the intrusion of clinical psychology.

No such thing as self-knowledge. It’s a catch-phrase meant to indicate one has an intelligence that gets along with itself more than not. Actually, brought up an excellent point regarding conscience, integrating well with intelligence, which gives….a catch-phrase meant to indicate one has an intelligence and a conscience that get along with each other more than not.

But saying, for example, that someone "inoculated people against reality" is already an interpretation of his act, not the act itself. Of course, then there are those who will say it's not so, that it's not merely an interpretation. — baker

If Trump lies, some may interpret it as him speaking truth. Nonetheless it seems plausible to think there is a fact of the matter as to whether he lied. When it comes to whether Trump's vision for the US and the world is a good one or not, then we might be harder pressed to justify claiming there is a fact of the matter about that, even though it might seem obvious that his vision is bogus.